Introduction
Few aspects of the UAE Corporate Tax regime illustrate the shift from formal legal analysis to economic analysis as clearly as Transfer Pricing. Although often associated with multinational groups and cross-border structuring, the UAE rules are framed more broadly. They extend into domestic relationships, closely held entities, and internal business arrangements in a way that materially widens the tax analysis required of businesses operating in the State.
That breadth is evident from Articles 34 to 36 of Federal Decree-Law No. 47 of 2022 on the Taxation of Corporations and Businesses (the “Corporate Tax Law”). These provisions do not treat Transfer Pricing as a narrow international tax rule. Rather, they establish a general framework through which the pricing and value of certain relationships and arrangements are tested by reference to statutory standards. In doing so, they require businesses to look beyond legal form and consider how value is created, how functions are performed, and where profits properly belong.
This article considers the scope of the UAE Transfer Pricing rules, focusing on the definitions of Related Parties, Connected Persons, and Controlled Transactions. It also addresses the distinction between the arm’s length standard in Article 34 and the market value test in Article 36, the practical importance of benchmarking, and the role of Transfer Pricing in the Free Zone context.
The Scope of Transfer Pricing under the Corporate Tax Law
The UAE Transfer Pricing framework is built around three core provisions. Article 34 establishes the arm’s length standard for transactions and arrangements between Related Parties. Article 35 defines Related Parties and Control. Article 36 addresses payments and benefits provided to Connected Persons. Read together, these provisions create a regime that is broader than a conventional cross-border transfer pricing code.
The legislation does not confine the rules to international dealings. Article 34 applies to transactions and arrangements between Related Parties as such, without drawing any distinction between domestic and cross-border activity. Article 36 similarly applies to payments or benefits provided by a Taxable Person to a Connected Person. As a result, the statutory framework reaches domestic structures, including family-owned groups, closely held entities, and arrangements between entities operating in or across Free Zones.
Unlike many transfer pricing regimes, the UAE rules are not confined to cross-border profit shifting. Under the Corporate Tax Law, the relevant question is not simply whether a business has cross-border Related Party dealings, but whether the arrangement falls within Articles 35 or 36 and satisfies the applicable statutory standard.
The scope of the substantive rule should also be distinguished from the scope of documentation requirements. Article 55 allows the Authority to require disclosure of transactions and arrangements with Related Parties and Connected Persons, and requires a Taxable Person meeting prescribed conditions to maintain a master file and local file. But the absence of a documentation requirement does not remove the substantive application of Articles 34 or 36. Documentation thresholds affect compliance burden; they do not define whether the pricing or valuation rule applies in principle.
Once a transaction falls within Articles 34 or 36, the next question is which substantive standard applies. The Corporate Tax Law draws an important distinction between the arm’s length standard applicable to Related Party dealings and the Market Value test applicable to Connected Person payments.
Arm’s Length Standard and Market Value: Related but Distinct
A critical distinction in the legislation is the difference between the arm’s length standard in Article 34 and the market value test in Article 36.
Article 34 provides that a transaction or arrangement between Related Parties meets the arm’s length standard if its results are consistent with those that would have been realised had persons who were not Related Parties entered into a similar transaction or arrangement under similar circumstances. The article then sets out recognised transfer pricing methods, including the comparable uncontrolled price method, resale price method, cost-plus method, transactional net margin method, and transactional profit split method. It also permits another method where the listed methods cannot reasonably be applied, provided the chosen method satisfies the statutory standard.
Article 36, by contrast, is framed differently. It provides that a payment or benefit to a Connected Person is deductible only if and to the extent that it corresponds with the Market Value of the service, benefit, or otherwise provided by the Connected Person and is incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the Taxable Person’s Business. The Decree-Law defines Market Value as the price that could be agreed in an arm’s-length free market transaction between persons who are not Related Parties or Connected Persons in similar circumstances. Article 36(5) then states that, in determining whether a payment corresponds with Market Value, the relevant provisions of Article 34 apply as the context requires.
The relationship between these provisions is important. Article 36 is not simply a repetition of Article 34. It is a deductibility rule, not a general income-adjustment rule. Its legal test is Market Value, coupled with the separate requirement that the payment be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business. However, the statute itself expressly points back to Article 34 as the analytical machinery for determining that Market Value. In practical terms, this means transfer pricing principles and methodologies may be used to test Market Value, but the operative rule remains Article 36’s combined test of value and business purpose.
This distinction matters in practice. A Related Party transaction may require an arm’s length pricing analysis even where deductibility is not in issue. A payment to a Connected Person, by contrast, must not only correspond with Market Value, but must also satisfy the specific requirements of Article 36, including a wholly-and-exclusively business purpose test, which applies without prejudice to the broader deductibility rule in Article 28. The two concepts are therefore connected, but they are not identical.
Related Parties: A Definition of Considerable Breadth
Article 35 adopts a broad definition of Related Parties. It extends beyond straightforward ownership relationships and captures association through kinship, ownership, and control. This breadth is central to the operation of the UAE Transfer Pricing regime and materially increases the range of transactions that may require review.
Kinship and affiliation
One of the more distinctive aspects of the UAE rules is the inclusion of natural persons related within the fourth degree of kinship or affiliation, including by adoption or guardianship. In practical terms, that means the Transfer Pricing perimeter reaches well beyond immediate family members. In a UAE context, this is especially significant because many commercial structures have developed organically through family ownership and management, with assets, licences, and operating businesses held across different relatives.
A lease of commercial premises from one family member to an operating company owned by another may therefore fall within the scope of a Controlled Transaction. So too may the provision of funding, guarantees, services, or other economic benefits across family-owned entities. In each case, the relevant statutory standard must be considered regardless of whether the arrangement arose historically, informally, or without any tax-driven purpose. The rule is concerned with the existence of the relationship and the economic outcome of the arrangement, rather than the taxpayer’s motive.
Ownership
The ownership limb of Article 35 is also broad. Related Party status arises where a natural person, alone or together with Related Parties, directly or indirectly owns a 50% or greater ownership interest in a juridical person, or where juridical persons satisfy equivalent direct or indirect ownership thresholds. The inclusion of indirect ownership requires careful tracing through ownership chains and may bring within scope entities that do not appear related at first sight.
This is particularly relevant in layered structures. A holding company may not deal directly with a downstream subsidiary several tiers removed, yet the effective ownership interest may still exceed the statutory threshold when traced through intermediate holdings. In practice, that means business shorthand about which entities are “group companies” may be too narrow for Corporate Tax purposes. The statutory test governs.
Control and significant influence
Control under Article 35 is defined in structured terms and should be applied accordingly. The Corporate Tax Law provides that Control means the ability of a person, whether in its own right or by agreement or otherwise, to influence another person, including the ability to exercise 50% or more of the voting rights of another person, determine the composition of 50% or more of its board of directors, receive 50% or more of its profits, or determine, or exercise significant influence over, the conduct of its business and affairs.
The first three limbs are expressed through clear quantitative thresholds and reflect conventional control relationships. The fourth limb is broader and more fact-dependent, but it should be read in context. It does not displace the 50% indicators. Rather, it captures cases where, despite the absence of formal majority rights, a person is nonetheless able to direct or materially shape the conduct of the business.
This requires a balanced analysis. The existence of a commercially important relationship does not, by itself, establish control. A financing arrangement, for example, may involve covenants, reporting rights, or other protective terms, but those features are commonly associated with creditor protection and do not, without more, amount to the ability to determine the conduct of the business. By contrast, if a party is demonstrably involved in setting business strategy, approving key commercial decisions, determining pricing policies, or directing the core affairs of the enterprise, the position may be different. The focus is not on influence in a loose commercial sense, but on influence that rises to the level of direction or determination of the business and its affairs.
That balance is important because Article 35 is capable of reaching beyond formal ownership structures, but it should not be applied so broadly that ordinary commercial relationships are recast as control relationships without sufficient factual basis.
Connected Persons and the Discipline of Deductibility
Article 36 introduces the concept of Connected Persons. This is not simply a repetition of the Related Party rules. Its primary significance lies in the deductibility of payments and benefits provided by a Taxable Person to persons connected with it.
A Connected Person includes an owner of the Taxable Person, a director or officer of the Taxable Person, and a Related Party of any such person. Where the Taxable Person is a partner in an Unincorporated Partnership, the definition extends further to the other partners in that partnership and their Related Parties.
The practical importance of Article 36 is obvious in owner-managed businesses, where individuals may simultaneously act as shareholders, directors, officers, and service providers. In such structures, the line between remuneration, return on capital, and informal value extraction may not always be clear. Article 36 addresses that concern by providing that payments or benefits to Connected Persons are deductible only if, and to the extent that, they correspond with the Market Value of what is provided by the Connected Person and are incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business.
Article 36 therefore imposes a dual test of value and business purpose. A substantial management fee paid to a shareholder-director cannot be justified merely because the individual is important to the business. The Taxable Person should be able to show what services were actually provided, why they were required by the business, and why the payment corresponds with Market Value. Even if that valuation exercise can be informed by Article 34 methodologies, Article 36 remains a distinct deductibility rule. An amount that appears supportable on valuation grounds may still fail if it was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business.
In that respect, Article 36 imposes a meaningful discipline. It does not prohibit payments to owners, directors, or related individuals. It requires that those payments be commercially supportable and genuinely business-related.
Controlled Transactions and the Reach of the Rules
Although the Corporate Tax Law does not provide an exhaustive definition of Controlled Transactions, the term is generally understood, in light of the transfer pricing provisions and related guidance, to extend beyond the supply of goods and services and include financing arrangements, transfers or use of intangible assets, and other arrangements between Related Parties or Connected Persons.
In practice, the transfer pricing rules extend well beyond ordinary sales and services. Interest-free shareholder loans, management charges without supporting documentation, informal cost-sharing arrangements, and the use of intellectual property across related entities may all require scrutiny. Central support functions may be provided without charge. One entity may make staff, premises, systems, or management capacity available to another without clear pricing. Loans may be extended on interest-free terms. The absence of a written agreement does not place such arrangements outside the Corporate Tax framework. If economic value moves between parties within scope, the legal question is whether the resulting outcome is supportable under the relevant statutory standard.
This is where Transfer Pricing begins to function less as a narrow documentation exercise and more as a broader analytical framework. It asks whether profits, costs, and returns reflect the economic reality of what each party contributes and bears.
Benchmarking and the Absence of Prescriptive Rates
That analytical exercise in turn highlights the importance of benchmarking. The Corporate Tax Law prescribes methods and standards, but it does not set fixed rates, safe harbours, or prescribed margins for common transaction types. There is no statutory default interest rate for intra-group loans, no automatic mark-up for management services, and no prescribed return for support functions. Article 34 instead requires the most reliable method to be chosen having regard to the contractual terms, characteristics of the transaction, economic circumstances, functions performed, assets employed, risks assumed, and business strategies of the parties.
The absence of prescriptive rates has two consequences. First, it gives the regime flexibility, allowing outcomes to reflect the actual facts and circumstances of the arrangement rather than an artificial formula. Secondly, it increases the evidentiary burden on taxpayers. If the law does not provide an automatic answer, the taxpayer must be able to support its pricing or valuation by reference to appropriate comparability analysis.
In practical terms, that means benchmarking matters. An intra-group loan requires more than an internally selected rate. Its terms should be supportable by reference to matters such as tenor, security, currency, subordination, borrower profile, and market conditions. A service charge requires more than a broad assertion that the amount is reasonable. The Taxable Person should be able to show what services were rendered, whether the recipient benefited, how the charge was calculated, and why the resulting amount is supportable by reference to comparable circumstances. Article 34 itself contemplates that a Transfer Pricing method may produce a range of acceptable outcomes, which reinforces the need for evidence and methodology rather than intuition.
Transfer Pricing and the Free Zone Regime
The interaction between Transfer Pricing and the Free Zone regime illustrates the structural role of TP within the wider Corporate Tax framework.
A Qualifying Free Zone Person must comply with Articles 34 and 55 of the Corporate Tax Law as a condition of benefiting from the Free Zone regime. The FTA’s Free Zone guidance further makes clear that a Free Zone Person must be able to demonstrate that the profits attributed to its Free Zone operations are commensurate with the functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed there. Where the person also has taxable operations outside the Free Zone, the Free Zone guidance adopts a separate entity approach and requires arm’s length attribution between the Free Zone business and non-Free Zone operations.
That point becomes especially important where a single juridical person conducts activities both within and outside a Free Zone. If a Free Zone entity relies on personnel outside the Free Zone to negotiate contracts, manage key customer relationships, control risk, or perform other value-creating activities, it may not be appropriate for the full resulting profit to remain within the Free Zone compartment. An arm’s length analysis may support attributing part of that profit to non-Free Zone operations, depending on the functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed outside the Free Zone.
A straightforward example illustrates the point. A Free Zone trading company may hold the contractual arrangements and book the sales revenue, but if commercial negotiations are in substance undertaken by a mainland sales function, and that function materially contributes to the generation of the profit, contractual form alone will not determine the correct tax outcome. A transfer pricing analysis may therefore be necessary to determine what return properly belongs to the Free Zone activities and what return should instead be attributed elsewhere. The same reasoning applies to strategic management, treasury, procurement, and risk control where those functions sit outside the Free Zone.
In that sense, Transfer Pricing does more than support compliance within the Free Zone regime. It helps define the practical boundary of that regime by ensuring that the preferential 0% rate is linked to profits genuinely attributable to qualifying Free Zone activity.
Advance Pricing Arrangements and Forward Certainty
The UAE Transfer Pricing framework is now supported by a more developed mechanism for forward certainty through Advance Pricing Arrangements (“APAs”). The statutory basis for APAs is reflected in Article 59 of the Corporate Tax Law, with practical implementation reinforced through Cabinet Decision No. 174 of 2025 and the release of the FTA’s APA Guide (CTGAPA1) on 31 December 2025.
The APA Guide sets out a structured process for obtaining advance agreement on the application of the arm’s length principle to specified transactions, typically over a three to five year period. The current guidance indicates that, as a general matter, the FTA expects APA applications to relate to Controlled Transactions whose combined value is least AED 100 million, together with a mandatory pre-filing stage and a formal application process. The current framework is focused on unilateral APAs, with scope expected to expand over time.
In a regime that does not prescribe fixed pricing parameters, the availability of APAs provides a practical mechanism for managing Transfer Pricing risk, particularly in relation to material or recurring arrangements such as intra-group services, financing structures, and Free Zone operations involving profit attribution. While the framework remains in its early stages of application, it represents a clear step towards embedding prospective certainty within the UAE Transfer Pricing system.
Conclusion
The UAE Transfer Pricing regime is broader in scope, and more consequential in practice, than is often assumed. By embedding the arm’s length standard within domestic law and coupling it with expansive definitions of Related Parties, Connected Persons, and Controlled Transactions, the Corporate Tax Law establishes a framework that extends well beyond the traditional cross-border paradigm.
The distinction between the arm’s length standard in Article 34 and the Market Value test in Article 36 is not merely technical. It reflects two related but distinct legal mechanisms: one governing the pricing of transactions between Related Parties, and the other imposing a deductibility discipline on payments to Connected Persons. When considered alongside the careful treatment required in assessing control, the absence of prescriptive pricing benchmarks, and the increasing relevance of advance certainty mechanisms such as APAs, the direction of the regime becomes clear.
Transfer Pricing in the UAE is not a mechanical compliance exercise. It is a substantive inquiry into whether pricing, valuation, and profit allocation outcomes are aligned with the underlying economic reality of the business. This is particularly evident in areas such as shareholder arrangements, family-owned structures, intra-group financing, and Free Zone operations, where legal form alone will not determine the appropriate tax outcome.
As the regime continues to develop in both guidance and practice, businesses should approach Transfer Pricing as a core component of legal and tax governance. In practice, businesses that can demonstrate that their pricing and profit allocation are supported by robust analysis, consistent methodology, and a clear articulation of where value is created will be best placed to sustain their position in an increasingly mature and scrutinised environment.
Seek Legal Counsel
Our expertise in tax law and regulations allows us to provide clients with effective and accurate tax advice, taking into consideration their unique circumstances and needs.
Our tax and financial crimes team, led by our Head of Tax and Financial Crimes, Mohamed El Baghdady, has successfully advised and represented clients across various industries, including, but not limited to, consumer goods and retail, services, real estate, oil & gas and banking and finance, before the Government authorities, tax tribunals and courts. Our clients have been successful in multiple tax disputes before the committees and courts.
For further information, please contact Mohamed El Baghdady, Partner, Head of Tax and Financial Crimes, on mohamed.elbaghdady@habibalmulla.com.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this information, the article does not offer a guarantee or warranty regarding its content. The matters discussed in this article are subject to interpretation, and legal outcomes may vary based on specific facts and circumstances. We recommend that readers seek individual legal counsel before making any decisions based on the information provided. If you require specific legal advice, please contact us directly.